COP21 RIPPLES · COP 21 RIPPLES – Report of 1D5.5 – st Stakeholder Meeting – V4 - [Final] – 07.09.2017 Discussions with the EAB began with clarifying a few points on the scenario

, Horizon 2020 Societal challenge 5: Climate action,

environment, resource efficiency and raw materials

COP21 RIPPLES COP21: Results and Implications for Pathways and Policies for Low

Emissions European Societies

GA number: 730427, Funding type: RIA

Deliverable number (relative in

WP) D5.5

Deliverable name: Report of 1st Stakeholder Meeting

WP / WP number: 5

Delivery due date: Project month 7 (31/07/2017)

Actual date of submission: 07/09/2017

Dissemination level: Publ ic

Lead beneficiary: Cl imate Strategies (CS)

Responsible scientist/administrator: Alexandra Carr (CS)

Estimated effort (PM): 1.5 PM

Contributor(s): Alexandra Carr (CS)

Estimated effort contributor(s) (PM): 1.5 PM (CS)

Internal reviewer: Carol ine Hoogendoorn (Iddri)

2 COP 21 RIPPLES – D5.5 – Report of 1

st Stakeholder Meeting – V4 - [Final] – 07.09.2017

1. Changes with respect to the DoA The report has been submitted in project month 10, a change from the initial submission date of project month 7.

2. Dissemination and uptake Stakeholder engagement, and dissemination and exploitation of research outcomes are important elements of the COP21 RIPPLES project and form the core of Work Package 5 (WP 5). This report documents the feedback from stakeholders at the first stakeholder meeting in June 2017. The report will be published on the project website and available for public use.

3. Short Summary of results (<250 words) The first stakeholder meeting report summarises the feedback provided by the Members of the External Advisory Board (EAB), during a two-day project meeting held in London in June 2017. The report covered specific feedback provided for Work Packages (WPs) 2 – 5, that are specified within the project proposal. The meeting provided a platform for the EAB to meet with the consortium for the first time, in person. The feedback received from the EAB was deemed constructive and useful for helping shape the work-streams and narratives of the project.

4. Evidence of accomplishment Published report.



Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Work Packages 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................ 4

3. Work Package 4 ........................................................................................................................... 6

4. Work Package 5 ........................................................................................................................... 7

5. Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................... 8

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 8

7. Annex ......................................................................................................................................... 9

7.1. 1st stakeholder meeting agenda ........................................................................................... 9



1. Introduction Work package 5 aims at “securing a constant dialogue between the project team and different user groups”, as well as “to have valuable input and feedback that can be integrated at critical stages during the development of the project”. With this objective in mind, the first stakeholder meeting was held on the 28th and 29th of June 2017, in London UK. This meeting was held alongside the second project meeting (see D1.3 for further details). This report will focus on the feedback from the delegates who were in attendance at the project’s first stakeholder meeting. For this first meeting, stakeholder participation was limited to the External Advisory Board (EAB), who joined the project in March 2017. It was decided that only the EAB members would attend in order to have a detailed discussion on the emerging work-streams following the project launch. The workshop would provide an opportunity for the EAB members to meet all together for the first time and to be briefed on both the overall project theme and the specific work-streams that will be included. The EAB was selected to include a range of professional backgrounds, including academic, business, government and civil society. There are nine delegates who form the EAB:

Name Title

Gilberto Arias Former Panama Ambassador to the UK and Independent Consultant

Pierre Cannet Head of Climate, Energy and Sustainable Cities at WWF France Timur Gül Senior Energy Analyst at the International Energy Agency

Wael Hmaidan Executive Director at CAN International Andrzej Kraszewski Associate Professor at Warsaw University of Technology

Clare Sierawski Manager of West Africa at the US Trade and Development Agency Katia Simeonova Manager at the UNFCCC

Thomas Spencer Fellow at TERI and former project PL

Hans van der Loo Independent policy, business and government relations adviser For the first stakeholder workshop, seven of the nine EAB members attended the workshop in person. The two members who were unable to attend were provided all materials from the workshop in order to provide feedback at a later, more convenient time. The members were in attendance for both days of the meeting and were invited to join and provide feedback to all sessions. There was also a dedicated slot in the agenda specifically for members to provide their detailed comments to the most issues of the project (see Annex).

2. Work Packages 2 and 3 The theme of work package 2 (WP2) is to assess the adequacy of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the available decarbonisation pathways to limit warming to 2°C and 1.5°, targets set under the Paris Agreement. The theme of work package 3 (WP3) is to assess the implications of NDCs and deeper mitigation pathways on other European socio-economic objectives. Focus themes include innovation and technology deployment, trade and competiveness, investment, financial flows and economic growth, and global energy markets and energy security.



Discussions with the EAB began with clarifying a few points on the scenario designs. There is a responsibility among researchers to create ambition through their results from the modelled scenarios. As NDCs are expected to be updated every 5 years, the project should be clear about how useful the NDCs benchmark is in the context of scenarios design and whether the scenarios are adaptable to the changing NDCs trajectories. It was highlighted that characterising current NDCs ambition should not be central to this study as there is already broad consensus that current ambition is not enough for reaching the Paris goals. There is emphasis that this work-stream will build on results and outcomes of the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project (DDPP), the MILES project, the IPCC database and other existing sources of mitigation scenarios. However, the project will need to define what new level of scope the research will add to this body of existing work. It will require ratcheting of ambitions of the storylines, by detailing how the scenarios are created and addressing the scope of the scenarios per country (i.e. national-based scenarios). By calculating country by country, rather than only using a global scenario, you can begin to accurately tailor the different solutions. This will avoid scenarios being too general, and allow for more detail on the transformation required at national level for implementing NDCs and more ambitious targets. The EAB also underlined the importance of behavioural change and lifestyle changes, in addition to technological change. It is often not addressed due to its complexities but is an important aspect to cover in the scenarios if possible. The narrative of lifestyle scenarios must be internally consistent and relatable to the present day, to ensure that stakeholders and media will pick up on the work. Scenarios could take a per-country or regional level scope in order to capture different lifestyles. Members of the EAB mentioned that one of the biggest criticisms of COP21 and the Paris Agreement was the lack of a global CO2 price being established. There are some discussions taking place in relation to the value of CO2, but the concept is not universally agreed on and so the project could look at analysis in this field. If it gets more attraction, it will become easier to move towards carbon price which is critical for deployment of new technology, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) (assuming the carbon price is high enough to make conventional fuels and technologies unviable) . For messaging, it was mentioned that it is important to define the difference between the 2 degree limit and the 1.5 degree goals. The EAB advised to either avoid or assess the term “well below”, as i t becomes difficult to define. As the Paris Agreement refers to “well below” 2 degrees, as well as the 1.5 degree target, the project must decide which definition to follow or to specify their own. Since the workstream focus is on the impact of COP21 as a whole, and not just specifically on the Paris Agreement, the framing needs to be better clarified. EAB members highlighted that it would be important to present the outcomes of the scenarios in a simple, illustrative way. This was considered important so that the messages are digestible for a range of stakeholders and will avoid the reports being ‘shelved’. Well produced reports do come out of academia if they focus on communication. There will be a lot of competition from other institutes the research much engage practically with their communications strategy. Ideas and concepts can take time to enter the discussion so visibility is important in order for messages to travel.



3. Work Package 4 The theme of work package 4 (WP4) is to assess the adequacy of COP21 outcomes for effective international climate governance. It will undertake a social sciences-based assessment of the COP21 outcome, with particular focus on international relations and law. It will also focus on what role the EU will play in this, along with analysing the impacts on a select number of emerging economy case studies (China, Brazil, India and South Africa).

The EAB members participating in the 1

st Stakeholder meeting

The discussion focused on the issues in current international regimes and gaps that have started to emerge, particularly under the UNFCCC. Clare Sierawski raised the point that in many countries, the UNFCCC actions have been handled by ministries that are typically weaker ministries in governments, such as the ministry of environment. This has been particularly true in some developing countries and the US. Support was provided for setting NDCs however there has been little involvement in the foll ow up process. Because of this, there is room for improvement on how to engage with ministries in a more holistic way. In order to overcome this issue and to assist countries in meeting their NDC’s, so it would be useful to identify a holistic approach to working with governments. This approach would seek to engage all important ministries within the national government, such as energy, economic, social affairs, and natural resources, in order to ascertain the best possible implementation of NDC’s. One EAB Member noted that there could also be another overall UN body in charge, such as an envoy on climate change, to link various agencies and ministries into climate change and ensure overall coverage and integration into various UN agencies. This is currently lacking in the UN system. The WP should seek to clearly define what the main political challenges are for international climate governance and formulate some universal, take-home lessons. This should specify whether there are any strategies available to overcome the particular challenges or whether strategies to overcome them are still sought after. The answer may not always lie directly in international governance but could analyse how international cooperation may help overcome these challenges.



Two EAB members, Katia Simeonova and Clare Sierawski, concurred in that transparency is a key gap that yet has to be addressed by international governance. According to Ms. Simeonova, transparency is the “glue” that holds the Paris Agreement together. Stakeholders Pierre Cannet and Clare Sierawski mentioned the changing nature of the UNFCCC and the annual COPs after the adoption of the Paris Agreement (and the rulebook). The stated that the UNFCCC should seek a stronger role as a convenor of non-state actors and transnational initiatives, a forum of “cross-fertilization” such that climate change and the implementation of climate policies become a motor for sustainable development and modernization. There was some thinking on whether this work-stream could look into how to take the climate issue beyond governance. For example, bringing it into culture and values (e.g. women’s rights), to becomes a part of our everyday lives. It could look for other sets of collective actors who are not necessarily an international governance institute but are working to address the related issues. The final part of the discussion centred on how the themes of WP4 will fit into the storylines of both WP2 and WP3. There seemed uncertainty over whether WP4 was meant to shape the scenarios of the other WP’s or whether it was meant to critique the proposed scenarios. This highlighted the importance of needing to integrate all WP’s into a synchronized narrative or storyline to strengthen the project’s outputs.

4. Work Package 5 The theme of work package 5 (WP5) is to provide policy recommendations for EU climate policy and climate diplomacy, through various stakeholder outreach activities over the timeframe of the project. Discussions with the EAB began with important dates and events in climate policy over the duration of the project. Key meetings include the UNFCCC COPs and the Subsidiary Body (SBs) meetings, IPCC publication of the 1.5C Special Report, G20 annual spring and autumn meetings, UN Environmental Assembly, Climate Vulnerable Forum and the SDG forums. There appear many opportunities over the next three years of the project and beyond 2020 to be a catalyst around these events. The EAB advised that the outcomes of the project will not be focused on defining the current political agenda, but instead to align our project findings with the evolving political landscape and aid the facilitative dialogue. They also encouraged the project team to be adaptive in their messages in order to capture the right audience and evolve alongside the changing political landscape. Publications and messages can be adapted to different events and tailored to particular markets and sectors. However, it was warned that in doing so, the project must keep its messages consistent.

Katia Simeonova, who has worked extensively for the UNFCCC focused her comments on the forthcoming UNFCCC activities. COP 23 will help advance the work programme and help maintain the



political momentum of the Paris Agreement, and so should be an important dissemination oppo rtunity for the project. The forthcoming UNFCCC facilitative dialogue, scheduled in 2018, is predicted not to be just a one off event but will take place over a number of phases over the course of the year. Because of this, it will be important to understand how to use various forums and institutions in order to encourage increased ambition of NDCs and advancement of the Paris Agreement agenda with the key messages from the project. The EAB encouraged an early publication, perhaps in the form of a policy brief, in order to signal to stakeholders in significant sectors what is on the agenda for them in order to be on track for decarbonisation. The project can also look for other forums in other sectors, such as the transport sector, that could provide hooks and opportunities to convey our messages.

5. Follow-Up Following the conclusion of the project meeting, additional feedback was provided by a select number of EAB members. This feedback included providing a template for building scenarios in order to provi de some inspiration to the teams, highlighting common “blind spots” in analytical energy research and providing some encouragement for the future opportunities that the project has for raising ambition. It was also reiterated the importance of creating a consistent project narrative so that the audience can understand how the three work-streams evolve and how indicators can converge, even if they don't speak to the same circumstances or underlying elements (due to modelled nature of their constructs).

6. Conclusion The first stakeholder meeting with the EAB was successful in meeting its objectives. It provided a platform for the EAB to meet in person with the consortium and provide detailed feedback on the initial work output. It also founded a good basis for regular dialogue with the EAB along the course of the project.



7. Annex

7.1. 1st stakeholder meeting agenda







Documents

COP21 RIPPLES · COP 21 RIPPLES – Report of 1D5.5 – st Stakeholder Meeting – V4 - [Final] – 07.09.2017 Discussions with the EAB began with clarifying a few points on the scenario